Didama
Active Member
102 ave is dead either way, if you allow cars or close it to pedestrians. Your support of a few cars per hour vs a few pedestrians per hour is equally ideological.
|
|
|
Car-Free Streets
- Thread starter Gronk!
- Start date
TAS
Senior Member
"Dont close stretches"
It seems your (car centric) philosophical and ideological belief is that a street is closed if you can't drive a car through it.
In 2016, only 75.6% of Canadians aged 16 and over had a valid driver's license, compared to 80.7% in 1996. And not all of those with a license have a car to drive or can afford it.
So more than 25% of Edmontonians 16 plus don't drive vehicles, plus everyone younger - so there are hundreds of thousands of Edmontonians who wouldn't consider a street as being 'closed' just because you can't drive a vehicle through it especially when you can still walk, bike, e-bike, scooter, skateboard, use a wheelchair, or take the lrt (eventually). I have a car but wouldn't consider the street as closed if I couldn't drive my car through it. So many transportation options to use a street for if one option isn't available.
IanO
Senior Member
I cannot stress enough that I lived Downtown as a pedestrian first for 15 years, was and still am an advocate for urban realms supporting mixed-uses and modal options, but 102 Avenue is simply NOT the place and would require millions and tens of millions to make it receptive for the non-existing density or footfall to support things there.
104 Street can only do it on summer Saturdays, perhaps one more day of the week, Rice Howard (arguably a much better option) cannot generate the traffic in the core of the core to do it and very few cities have year-round examples to pull from; let alone ones with the lack of density, transit options and desire to be in a Downtown.
104 Street can only do it on summer Saturdays, perhaps one more day of the week, Rice Howard (arguably a much better option) cannot generate the traffic in the core of the core to do it and very few cities have year-round examples to pull from; let alone ones with the lack of density, transit options and desire to be in a Downtown.
thommyjo
Senior Member
I would definitely love to see general improvements to all of our downtown as the highest priority. What we are doing on jasper ave is needed for 50% of our sidewalks and streets. They’re in such bad shape. 104st and RHW as Ian mentioned are the east options. 102vae all the way to 110st MUP is a great long term vision, but we likely need 5+ more developments along that stretch for it to not be a barren wasteland first.
I don’t find my experience downtown as a pedestrian is primarily hurt by cars in our DT (whereas in Toronto this is 100% the problem). It’s the crumbling sidewalks, ugliness, wide crossings, snow clearing, safety, garbage, lighting.
I don’t find my experience downtown as a pedestrian is primarily hurt by cars in our DT (whereas in Toronto this is 100% the problem). It’s the crumbling sidewalks, ugliness, wide crossings, snow clearing, safety, garbage, lighting.
IanO
Senior Member
How many streets has Downtown Vancouver permanently closed?
www.vancouverisawesome.com
Vancouver's new pedestrian-friendly 'open street' is only open sometimes to pedestrians
Great concept, poor execution says the public.
www.vancouverisawesome.com
TAS
Senior Member
How many streets has Downtown Vancouver permanently closed?
Vancouver's new pedestrian-friendly 'open street' is only open sometimes to pedestrians
Great concept, poor execution says the public.
Permanently close a street? You mean nobody can go on it? Or do you mean car-free?
Didama
Active Member
If it quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. Your default setting is cars first, lets face it. What's wrong with just closing this street and having it car free even if it isn't being used heavily by pedestrians? Can't we just have a space that's car free for the sake of being car free?
Didama
Active Member
Also saying you are not a 'car first guy' because you used to live downtown for while is like someone saying he's not racist because he has a black girlfriend. Imperfect comparison but the mere fact that you've lived downtown gives you limited 'feet first' cred unless you actually show it rather than just talk it.
IanO
Senior Member
Obtuse and inaccurate. Bravo.
Didama
Active Member
How is it inaccurate? 99.9% of roads in downtown Edmonton are open to cars and yet you oppose closing a small stretch of road just because there aren't a lot of pedestrians. Once you advocate closing roads that don't have heavy car traffic I'll believe that you're not a car first guy. Show me don't tell me.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Not really, Ian. Every single time someone here proposes a pedestrian-first move (or a car-second, at least) you tend to be one of the first opposing.
Close 102 to cars? No
Road diet on Whyte Ave to prioritize transit and pedestrian? No
Road diet on Jasper Ave? No
I could go on, but the point is proven.
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
102 ave has little to offer to pedestrians. When I walk from Churchill square westwards on the Northside, the first block has all of 3 active doors and essentially a wall of glass. The next block has essentially 2 active doors and a wall of glass and concrete. By the time we get to 103 st. It begins to change but not as much yet at the boardwalk and really more interactivity going north to Rogers place on 103st. Now if we turn around and go to the south side of 102ave going back to Churchill square, the amount of blank walls, absence of doors or empty lots is very disheartening.
IanO
Senior Member
Why, because I want to see efficient, successful streets and avenues that are multi-modal and when the case is built to make changes, to do so in a way that is going to in vigour, bring people, business and investment. There are various opportunities to create part-time pedestrian streets, perhaps even for the entire summer, but these need to be carefully thought-out, programmed and planned. The classic chicken and the egg conundrum maybe, but 102 Avenue ain't the spot, not now, not likely in my lifetime.
Closing things, be it for bikes, cars, trains or planes, just to permanently close things for a particular use isn't a particularly good argument. Look at other cities around the world with great pedestrian streets, or even Stephen Avenue and you must have some fundamentals, sizes, built form and density to make them work well. Pilot projects can be a good first step and help flush out where something more permanent might be most productive.
Whyte is a challenge because of very few E-W arterial options and while I do very much support a revised Whyte, it's above my pay grade. I do think that it needs attention and improvements for those of us who are pedestrians, visitors and the like, but I've been pleased with what's been happening for the last few years and believe that trend will continue.
Jasper needs some capacity at peak, but I'd argue that the 97-101st was very well done and a good balance. If you are just wanting to 'retake' or 'take back' the streets, that's almost an entirely different conversation as I mention in a previous post.
Remember when Paths closed Jasper from 103-108 and down to 99ave? It was hugely successful around 105-106st BECAUSE it has character, diverse uses, outward facing businesses and was programmed. The rest of the areas were lacklustre and a relatively poor experience and that was a 25C day with 10,000 people.
Edmonton tends to have relatively poor public realms, although improving, sidewalks and pedestrian investment does need a continued focus.
Let me be very clear here, I am a pedestrian first, have contributed to those efforts in a variety of ways and while not always outright supportive of certain items or options, I am 100% behind improved pedestrian experiences, safer/cleaner streets and a renewed focus of small scale retail along our streets and avenues.
Didama
Active Member
So then you're a car-first guy who is willing to occasionally throw a bone to pedestrians but ONLY if there is a particularly heavy concentration of them in one area.
Why can't we have spaces for pedestrians even if it is in an area where there aren't a ton of people at any given point in time? Who says it has to be an area with heavy foot traffic? It's a complete double standard in relation to how we view cars and completely reflects your car-first guy status.
Good example? 102 ave in downtown and Oliver. It gets used more by bikes and scooters than cars for 8 months of the year (and probably about evenly the other four months). Do we dare say let's close it to cars and open the whole ave for non motorized transportation and pedestrians? Of course not. That would be sacrilegious in Edmonton.
Bottom line: if you make every potential road closure for bikes, scooters, pedestrians dependent on numbers and studies and pilot projects while refusing to do the same for cars regardless how little some streets are used by motorized vehicles, you're probably a car first guy.
TAS
Senior Member
I think we're all on the same page with this comment of yours: "I want to see efficient, successful streets and avenues that are multi-modal..."
Maybe where the disconnect is happening with your viewpoint and what people seem to believe is lack of specific examples.
@IanO
Just wondering from you if there are any notable streets where your statement I quoted above may not be the case right now that you would like to see become multi-modal?
And are there any prominent streets or otherwise that
you would like to see go on a road diet for whatever reason- maybe to allow wider sidewalks or tree planting or for patio space or to facilitate bike lanes etc?